After the last meeting at Wallops (Frank C. and I flew on the 310) Frank took some pictures of the launch pad under construction, with yours truly beaming. Also, the incredible water tower we put up for the water deluge system. According to Frank, who has done some research, at 299.5 feet from base to top of tank THIS MAY BE THE TALLEST WATER TANK IN THE WORLD!!!

As you can see, it's still unpainted. With Bill W.'s permisison, we are running a contest for the best paint scheme. Any ideas?...

Practical idea: Paint it white, then put an OSC Logo and the Cygnus logo on the tank.

Purely fantastical: half the height burnt orange and the other Chicago Maroon instead of the white. and add a VT logo in there somewhere

...After looking at this, I'm believing that the Enhanced stage does not use RL10 or liquid hydrogen. The performance described seems to mesh better with an upper stage working at 330-340 sec specific impulse and 10 to 20 tonnes thrust. Something like half of an RD-0110 (LOX/kerosene), or some type of pump-fed hypergolic engine. In other words, no existing U.S. engine - though it would make sense for Aerojet to be involved in this somehow...

...May be two RD-58M or two 11D33?...

...How about AJ-10, it is an engine with substantial flight history and powers the delta II upper stage right now plus it is an artojet engine...

...Here's an idea: LR-91...

There has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage. Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124, the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine. The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler). The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!

Initially it will not have restart capability, so it's definitely ISS-oriented. With restart capability (to be developed later) it has some serious mid-class GTO capability.

Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!

There has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage. Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124, the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine. The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler). The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!

Initially it will not have restart capability, so it's definitely ISS-oriented. With restart capability (to be developed later) it has some serious mid-class GTO capability.

Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!

Cool stuff. Would have preferred the RL-10 too (such a sweet little engine), but it's neat to hear about the progress on the T-IIe. Was it the hassle of working with LH2 that killed it, or were there other concerns above and beyond that?

There has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage. Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124, the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine. The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler). The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!

Initially it will not have restart capability, so it's definitely ISS-oriented. With restart capability (to be developed later) it has some serious mid-class GTO capability.

Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!

This rocket, powered by two Russian rocket engines with a Ukrainian-built first stage, will be bought, for ISS missions, with U.S. taxpayer funding. Hardware built overseas represents lost U.S. jobs and lost U.S. capability.

Given that Congress is pushing to save U.S. space jobs in the current NASA budget fight, how can this outsourced rocket maintain political support? Or, perhaps, cuts in commercial crew funding in both bills is a sign that it already has lost the fight?

Cool stuff. Would have preferred the RL-10 too (such a sweet little engine), but it's neat to hear about the progress on the T-IIe. Was it the hassle of working with LH2 that killed it, or were there other concerns above and beyond that?

There has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage. Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124, the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine. The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler). The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!

Initially it will not have restart capability, so it's definitely ISS-oriented. With restart capability (to be developed later) it has some serious mid-class GTO capability.

Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!

This rocket, powered by two Russian rocket engines with a Ukrainian-built first stage, will be bought, for ISS missions, with U.S. taxpayer funding. Hardware built overseas represents lost U.S. jobs and lost U.S. capability.

Given that Congress is pushing to save U.S. space jobs in the current NASA budget fight, how can this outsourced rocket maintain political support? Or, perhaps, cuts in commercial crew funding in both bills is a sign that it already has lost the fight?

- Ed Kyle

My guess is that they have to reduce costs as much as possible in order to be able to compete with SpaceX and ULA/Boeing, etc. in order to obtain some of the reduced commercial crew development funds. Orbital was initially asking $3B to manrate the Taurus II. They are not going to get $3B. So reducing the cost of the upper stage is a big factor for them.

Given that Congress is pushing to save U.S. space jobs in the current NASA budget fight, how can this outsourced rocket maintain political support? Or, perhaps, cuts in commercial crew funding in both bills is a sign that it already has lost the fight?

It seems that the voters and the companies only want to maintain Shuttle jobs. If they were willing to adapt, they should not have sent signals that they aren't in railing against commercialization.

Logged

If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate. Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with. Facts generally receive the former.

There has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage. Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124, the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine. The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler). The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!

Initially it will not have restart capability, so it's definitely ISS-oriented. With restart capability (to be developed later) it has some serious mid-class GTO capability.

Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!

Cool stuff. Would have preferred the RL-10 too (such a sweet little engine), but it's neat to hear about the progress on the T-IIe. Was it the hassle of working with LH2 that killed it, or were there other concerns above and beyond that?

RL-10 lacks the thrust, simple as that. The RD-0120 will be a fine engine. Of course you realize that this now means that the Taurus II will run main engines from both russian super heavy lift rockets.

Logged

chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

There has been considerable discussion on what liquid engine we would select for the Enhanced configuration liquid upper stage. Having lost my own personal battle for an RL10-based upper stage (probably for good reason...) I am happy to report that we are negotiation with the Russian government for usage approval of the RD-0124, the current (relatively new) Soyuz upper stage engine. The bad news is that it is yet another non-U.S. engine (the rest of the stage, however, is U.S. manufacture, with final assembly in Chandler). The good news is that it has the perfect packaging aspect ratio for Taurus II, and it's performance kicks a$$!!!

Initially it will not have restart capability, so it's definitely ISS-oriented. With restart capability (to be developed later) it has some serious mid-class GTO capability.

Now Taurus II ("II E"?) has an easy time lifting a three-person capsule!

Cool stuff. Would have preferred the RL-10 too (such a sweet little engine), but it's neat to hear about the progress on the T-IIe. Was it the hassle of working with LH2 that killed it, or were there other concerns above and beyond that?

RL-10 lacks the thrust, simple as that. The RD-0120 will be a fine engine. Of course you realize that this now means that the Taurus II will run main engines from both russian super heavy lift rockets.